Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby Zakattack » Wed May 01, 2013 9:13 pm

binocular wrote:Why do you think it is relevant that Christianity borrowed (as per you) some teachings from Buddhism?

I think it is relevant to view that Christianity borrowed some teachings from Buddhism because it is supports the enlightened view of cause & effect & supports the enlightened view, as posted earlier, from MN 115, that there cannot be the contemporaneous arising of two Sammasambuddha in one world system.

Although Buddha is called 'Sammasambuddha' (meaning self-enlightened without a teacher), his enlightenment was influenced by cause & effect, in that his concentration practises were influenced by current practises of his time. It was Buddha's insight that was truly unique (rather than his concentration).

I think it is relevant because if we believe Jesus 'spontaneously arose' without other influences then we may deny the evolution that is cause & effect and, instead, we may develop or maintain views of 'spontaneous creationism' with a god as the sole cause.

The Buddhist scriptures say:

Monks, there are these three sectarian guilds that — when cross-examined, pressed for reasons, & rebuked by wise people — even though they may explain otherwise, remain stuck in [a doctrine of] inaction. Which three?

There are brahmans & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all caused by what was done in the past.' There are brahmans & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation.' There are brahmans & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all without cause & without condition.'

"Having approached the brahmans & contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation?"' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being's act of creation. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being's act of creation.' When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those brahmans & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


Also, keep in mind, Christianity seems to have a clear doctrine of spontaneous sole cause created arising of Jesus:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
Zakattack
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:07 am

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby ground » Thu May 02, 2013 2:51 am

Zakattack wrote:I am certainly asserting ...

Yes, ideas are certainly expressing themselves. That is a condition for the arising of religions like buddhism and christianity. Human creativity. Consciousness being the dilemma in the first place. :sage:
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby Zakattack » Thu May 02, 2013 11:09 am

ground wrote:Consciousness being the dilemma in the first place.

Without consciousness, there cannot be enlightenment. Therefore, how can consciousness be a dilemma?
Discernment & consciousness, friend: Of these qualities that are conjoined, not disjoined, discernment is to be developed, consciousness is to be fully comprehended. MN 43

My understanding of Buddha's teachings is craving (passion) was identified as the dilemma to be abandoned.
If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' Upaya Sutta

You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness — for the ending of craving, Radha, is Unbinding. Satta Sutta

Christianity also identifies the dilemma as craving, the same as Buddhism
John 4:13
Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life. I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

Galatians 5:24
Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

James 4:1
[ Submit Yourselves to God ] What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you?

James 1:15
When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.


:alien:
Zakattack
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:07 am

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby binocular » Thu May 02, 2013 1:16 pm

Zakattack wrote:
binocular wrote:Why do you think it is relevant that Christianity borrowed (as per you) some teachings from Buddhism?

I think it is relevant to view that Christianity borrowed some teachings from Buddhism because it is supports the enlightened view of cause & effect & supports the enlightened view, as posted earlier, from MN 115, that there cannot be the contemporaneous arising of two Sammasambuddha in one world system.

Although Buddha is called 'Sammasambuddha' (meaning self-enlightened without a teacher), his enlightenment was influenced by cause & effect, in that his concentration practises were influenced by current practises of his time. It was Buddha's insight that was truly unique (rather than his concentration).

I think it is relevant because if we believe Jesus 'spontaneously arose' without other influences then we may deny the evolution that is cause & effect and, instead, we may develop or maintain views of 'spontaneous creationism' with a god as the sole cause.


It seems then that you are trying to safeguard against Christianity; to show that Christian doctrine is not the highest there is or can be.
Is that correct?
binocular
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby ground » Thu May 02, 2013 3:12 pm

Zakattack wrote:
ground wrote:Consciousness being the dilemma in the first place.

Without consciousness, there cannot be enlightenment. Therefore, how can consciousness be a dilemma?

Why are there questions? No consciousness no wanting to know. Idea causes idea. Idea and consciousness are one and the same phenomenon.
No ignorance, no consciousness.
From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
...
Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html



Zakattack wrote:Without consciousness, there cannot be enlightenment. Therefore, how can consciousness be a dilemma?

Sounds like "without dukkha, no liberation from dukkha. Therefore, how can dukkha be a dilemma?"

No ignorance, no consciousness.
From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. ...
...
Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. ...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html



Further:
"What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about:[1] This is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

"If one doesn't intend and doesn't arrange, but one still obsesses [about something], this is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such [too] is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

"But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. There being no support, there is no landing of consciousness. When that consciousness doesn't land & grow, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html





To replace christian consciousness (christian ideas) by buddhist consciousness (buddhist ideas) in the context of belief (ideas affirming themselves to be more than just that) still is "intending, arranging or obsessing about" and "stationing ... landing of consciousness", so there is "the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair.

That is why it has been said
From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. ... Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.
...
Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. ... Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


:sage:
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby Zakattack » Thu May 02, 2013 9:48 pm

binocular wrote:It seems then that you are trying to safeguard against Christianity; to show that Christian doctrine is not the highest there is or can be.

For the purpose of penetrating Buddhism & enlightenment, it is not necessary to safeguard against those practical teachings in Christianity that are the same as Buddhism. But to believe in the theistic aspect of Christianity will certainly hinder penetrating Buddhism & enlightenment. If people are inclined to theism then Christianity is available for them. Buddha did not actively work to stop theism. As for what is the highest liberation of mind, it is made clear in Buddhism this is Nirvana/Emptiness. MN 43 lists five kinds of liberation of mind (ceto vimittu), including the (Christian) liberation of mind by loving-kindness. It is correctly declared the liberation of mind by Emptiness (sunnata) is the foremost. It is not necessary for me to show Christian doctrine is not the highest there is or can be. This is a fact of reality, pointed out by the Buddhas. This view of 'equality' of Christianity & Buddhism will hinder the realisation of Buddhism. All paths & religions are valid but they all do not necessarily lead to the same destination. With metta.
Zakattack
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:07 am

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby Zakattack » Thu May 02, 2013 10:18 pm

ground wrote:"What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about: This is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

"But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. There being no support, there is no landing of consciousness. When that consciousness doesn't land & grow, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

This quote is suitable. The dilemma here is the "stationing", "establishing" & "growing" of consciousness. Theses words are synonymous with delight (infatuation) & attachment. When an ordinary man sees a beautiful woman, consciousness, via craving, will become stationed, established & will grow ('wide eyed') there. I would recommend to re-read the sutta quoted. This photograph perfectly shows what is being taught in the sutta about the stationing & growing of consciousness.

Image

Please recall, I quoted a sutta that described the liberation of consciousness rather than the liberation from consciousness.
If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' Upaya Sutta

There are many sutta that describe liberation when remaining conscious.
What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element with residue left.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... ml#iti-044

As for the translation "cessation", this may not accurately represent the Pali "nirodha". I think only some kind of experience of liberation can provide us with conviction about the actual meaning of this word. Keep in mind, in the 3rd Noble Truth, "nirodha" describes the cessation of craving. I suggest the quotes you & I have made will all conform to each other when "nirodha" is interpreted as 'the cessation of craving affecting consciousness' rather than 'unconsciousness'. (However, there are alternative one word translations of "nirodha", which will alter your theoretical idea). There is little point arguing about this because it is experiential realisation which determines individual convictions. However, what is beyond dispute is your ideas about the 'cessation of consciousness' are just theoretical ideas. As the cessation of consciousness can never be experienced since all experience requires consciousness then your idea remains a theoretical idea and remains contrary to the dhamma principle of verifying the dhamma via experience. In conclusion, your theoretical idea about "the cessation of consciousness" contradicts your own very point made earlier, when you said:
Ground wrote:You seem to confuse "being conditioned to perceive as X" on the one hand and the thought of "X being independent of perception" on the other hand. Since you cannot discern dependent arising of "perceiving as X" X appears to you as if being independent of "perception as X".

Yes. It seems beyond dispute you are "being conditioned" to believe (rather than perceive) in this "cessation of consciousness" that occurs after the cessation of ignorance. Therefore, by doing some research , some alternative translations for "nirodha" may be found that may possibly reconcile conflicting views & sutta.

Best wishes, adios, ciao

:namaste:
Zakattack
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:07 am

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby ground » Fri May 03, 2013 2:32 am

Zakattack wrote:Please recall, I quoted a sutta that described the liberation of consciousness rather than the liberation from consciousness.

"Liberation" is a consciousness. There is no liberation beyond the consciousness "liberation". Liberation is just an idea, is just consciousness clinging to itself, is just "intending, arranging and obsessing about".

Zakattack wrote:There are many sutta that describe liberation when remaining conscious.

There is no meaning in any suttas. There is conditioned consciousness arising upon seeing.

Zakattack wrote:Yes. It seems beyond dispute you are "being conditioned" to believe (rather than perceive) in this "cessation of consciousness" that occurs after the cessation of ignorance.

Conditions made this body, the perception of it, arise. And conditions will bring this body to an end, the perception of it. There is nothing that ceases beyond the consciousnesses arising upon reading these words before there will arise and cease the next consciousnesses. No belief, words are just trial ballons, quoting suttas is just trial ballons. Forget suttas. There is no benefit, there are just consciousnesses nuturing themselves. Understanding may arise or understanding may not arise. Buth whether there is understanding or not, no difference. My words do not make difference, what makes difference for itself is consciousness arising upon seeing words.

Zakattack wrote:... that may possibly reconcile conflicting views & sutta.

There being no view there is no conflict at all.

Investigate!

Christianity and Buddhism, same source (creativity, i.e. potentiality for consciousnesses to arise), same essence (consciousnesses), same basis (consciousnesses).

:sage:
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby ground » Fri May 03, 2013 3:11 am

Zakattack,
Having said all this, this is not meant to reject your buddhism. On the contrary I advice you to keep at it! Why? Because for the time being this seems to be your way and you have to go down this road. And if you need your idea of christianity to strenghten your resolve then keep at it and cultivate it. However watch out for passions.
And if I meet a christian who argues against buddhism to strengthen his resolve I will be giving the same advice: Keep at it! Why? For the time being christianity seems to be his way and he has to go down this road. However I will say: Watch out for passions.

Discern conditioned arising of consciousnesses and investigate the outset.

:sage:
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby Zakattack » Fri May 03, 2013 4:32 am

ground wrote:"Liberation" is a consciousness. There is no liberation beyond the consciousness "liberation". Liberation is just an idea, is just consciousness clinging to itself, is just "intending, arranging and obsessing about".

Liberation is the unconditioned. Consciousness is a condition phenomena. Liberation is not an idea. If liberation was an idea then all that would be required for liberation to give rise to the idea rather than entering the path stream of cleansing the mind.

Forget suttas. There is no benefit...

The realities expressed in the suttas represent the 2nd of the Triple Gem. The sutta test realisation.

:alien:
Zakattack
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:07 am

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby Zakattack » Fri May 03, 2013 4:35 am

ground wrote:Having said all this, this is not meant to reject your buddhism. On the contrary I advice you to keep at it! Why? Because for the time being this seems to be your way and you have to go down this road. And if you need your idea of christianity to strenghten your resolve then keep at it and cultivate it. However watch out for passions. And if I meet a christian who argues against buddhism to strengthen his resolve I will be giving the same advice: Keep at it! Why? For the time being christianity seems to be his way and he has to go down this road. However I will say: Watch out for passions. Discern conditioned arising of consciousnesses and investigate the outset.

I think before to reject something it needs to be understood. Giving advice is the same. Instead of posting the pananca above, I suggest to realise Dhamma. Buddha taught: "One stuck in the mud cannot pull another out of the mud, that is impossible". Jesus taught: "When the blind lead the blind, they both fall into a ditch".

:focus:
Zakattack
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:07 am

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby ground » Fri May 03, 2013 4:14 pm

Zakattack wrote:Liberation is not an idea.

Great idea. Keep at it, my friend.

Zakattack wrote:... Buddha taught: ... Jesus taught: ...

ground has nothing to teach. ground just keeps Zakattack busy. Like Buddha does. :sage:
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby binocular » Fri May 03, 2013 6:26 pm

Zakattack wrote:This view of 'equality' of Christianity & Buddhism will hinder the realisation of Buddhism. All paths & religions are valid but they all do not necessarily lead to the same destination. With metta.


Who argues that Christianity and Buddhism are equal?
binocular
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby ground » Sat May 04, 2013 1:43 am

binocular wrote:
Zakattack wrote:This view of 'equality' of Christianity & Buddhism will hinder the realisation of Buddhism. All paths & religions are valid but they all do not necessarily lead to the same destination. With metta.


Who argues that Christianity and Buddhism are equal?

Same source, same essence, same basis. In addition: same effect of practice (focus and exclusion, resulting in faith, contentment, confidence and even happiness). However the ideas qua self-expressions by means of words are different. So it is similar to colors. All colors are the same in terms of source, essence, basis and visual effect qua effect ... however individuals actually do prefer different colors. That does however not render one color superior to the other when the sphere of preference, i.e. mere like and dislike, is left behind. :sage:
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby Zakattack » Sat May 04, 2013 7:53 am

ground wrote:In addition: same effect of practice (focus and exclusion, resulting in faith, contentment, confidence and even happiness).

The impression here is the intended effect ("fruit") of Buddhism remains a mystery. "Happiness" is impermanent "heaven". It is not the Nibbana of utter dispassion (viraga) & emptiness (sunnata). If there was no Buddhism, how far can the teachings recorded in the Bible take a mind towards the enlightenment that ends suffering?

I wonder if Ground is a Westerner? In my experience, what I have found is many Asian Buddhists become quite infatuated with Christianity, including famous monks such as Thich Nhat Han & Buddhadasa. It is one thing to view Christianity from a Buddhist background. It is another thing to be a Westerner that found nothing in Christianity and then searched & searched until they found Buddhism.

Buddha taught: "Svakkhato bhagavata dhamma: The Dhamma, perfectly explained by the Blessed One". It is important to see when one projects the clarity of Dhamma onto the convolutedness of Christianity. Can the Bible alone bring real wisdom & real freedom from suffering? Do the teachings of Jesus really stack up to the following description?

Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork....MN 22


:buddha1:
Zakattack
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:07 am

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby Zakattack » Sat May 04, 2013 8:14 am

binocular wrote:
Zakattack wrote:This view of 'equality' of Christianity & Buddhism will hinder the realisation of Buddhism. All paths & religions are valid but they all do not necessarily lead to the same destination. With metta.


Who argues that Christianity and Buddhism are equal?

"Who"? There is really no "who" is Buddhism. This is an example of the obstacle that was referred to.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


:alien:

Compare to Buddha:

And how does a monk who has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, develop & pursue the noble eightfold path? There is the case where a monk develops right view dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in relinquishment. He develops right resolve... right speech... right action... right livelihood... right effort... right mindfulness... right concentration dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in relinquishment.


A holy person goes unscathed,
though having killed father and mother and two noble kings
and destroyed a kingdom with all its subjects.


Explanation: The brahmin kills the mother - craving, kills the father - egotism, self-cherishing: They represent the two views, Eternalism and Nihilism, opposed to Buddhist thought. The subordinates are clinging to life. And he destroys the defilements which cling to life. Having destroyed all these, the brahmin (arahat) goes without punishment.


:candle:
Zakattack
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:07 am

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby binocular » Sat May 04, 2013 11:54 am

ground wrote:Same source, same essence, same basis. In addition: same effect of practice (focus and exclusion, resulting in faith, contentment, confidence and even happiness). However the ideas qua self-expressions by means of words are different. So it is similar to colors. All colors are the same in terms of source, essence, basis and visual effect qua effect ... however individuals actually do prefer different colors. That does however not render one color superior to the other when the sphere of preference, i.e. mere like and dislike, is left behind.


In that case, you seem to be arguing for an "anything goes, anything is good enough" stance.

Even shooting heroin up one's veins results in faith, contentment, confidence and even happiness -- for some time.
binocular
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby binocular » Sat May 04, 2013 12:01 pm

Zakattack wrote:I think it is relevant because if we believe Jesus 'spontaneously arose' without other influences then we may deny the evolution that is cause & effect and, instead, we may develop or maintain views of 'spontaneous creationism' with a god as the sole cause.


And what is wrong with that - other than that it seems to be in discord with Buddhist doctrine?


"Having approached the brahmans & contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation?"' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being's act of creation. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being's act of creation.' When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those brahmans & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


There are many kinds of theism, and this reasoning above is aimed only at one type of it. The modern equivalent of this type of theism would be Calvinist predestination doctrine, for example.

But there are other forms of theism, such as some Hindu forms of theism, that are more sophisticated than that, and which Buddhist anti-theist arguments don't tackle.
binocular
 
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby Zakattack » Sat May 04, 2013 7:11 pm

binocular wrote:But there are other forms of theism, such as some Hindu forms of theism, that are more sophisticated than that, and which Buddhist anti-theist arguments don't tackle.

I think Buddha simply focused on what is real & observable. The terms Buddha generally used were literal expressions of observable reality, such as "nibbana" or "nirvana", which literally mean something like "extinguishing heat"; cool & peaceful. Buddha also used the word "gods", to refer to various kinds of worldly power, such as a king that has power is a "god" (deity). Often words need to be examined for their root meanings because often words, possibly such as the Hindu 'Brahman', may have a natural (rather than personal) root. From a purely natural (& Buddhist) perspective, the problem with theist words is they have a tendency to reify & anthropomorphize. From natural, scientific & Buddhist perspectives, if it: (i) cannot be observed; & (ii) is poorly defined, then it is generally invalid. For example, the creative & destructive forces of nature, Buddhism calls 'cause & effect', 'arising & cessation', 'creation & destruction'. These are valid definitions for a mind free from delusion & hallucinatory imaginativeness. Buddha generally called a spade 'a spade'. Buddha did not call a spade "God". Imagine if I spoke to people, calling dogs 'cats', pigs 'sheep', red 'blue' & green 'pink'. People would think I have gone completely bonkers.

:alien:
Last edited by Zakattack on Sat May 04, 2013 7:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Zakattack
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:07 am

Re: Did Christianity "borrow" from Buddhism?

Postby Zakattack » Sat May 04, 2013 7:30 pm

binocular wrote:
ground wrote:Same source, same essence, same basis. In addition: same effect of practice (focus and exclusion, resulting in faith, contentment, confidence and even happiness). However the ideas qua self-expressions by means of words are different. So it is similar to colors. All colors are the same in terms of source, essence, basis and visual effect qua effect ... however individuals actually do prefer different colors. That does however not render one color superior to the other when the sphere of preference, i.e. mere like and dislike, is left behind.


In that case, you seem to be arguing for an "anything goes, anything is good enough" stance.

Even shooting heroin up one's veins results in faith, contentment, confidence and even happiness -- for some time.

Binocular

Your answer here is incredibly illuminating, like a skilled carpenter that straightens out a bent nail. It is scientifically obvious all colors are not the same in terms of source, essence, basis and visual effect qua effect. It is obvious the different colors, similar to the inherently existing impermanence, unsatisfactory & not-self, are not related to individual preferences or ideas.

Why the clear sky and the deep sea are seen as blue

Of the colours in the visible spectrum of light, blue has a very short wavelength, while red has the longest wavelength. When sunlight passes through the atmosphere, the blue wavelengths are scattered more widely by the oxygen and nitrogen molecules, and more blue comes to our eyes


Why leaves and grass are green

Leaves and growing fresh grass are green because they contain a natural pigment known as chlorophyll. Chlorophyll takes the energy of sunlight and uses it to convert carbon dioxide and water into chemical energy, in the form of glucose, or natural sugar, which allows the plant to grow. This process is called photosynthesis. Chlorophyll absorbs the long wavelengths (red) and short wavelengths (blue) of the light, but the green light is reflected, making the grass and leaves appear green.

The former view expressed shows the strong distinction between Buddhism (which is naturalist) & Theism (which is creationist, i.e., believes in the self or atman that creates & controls). Buddhism would hold the different colors exist due to various underlying nature-based causes & conditions (iddappaccayata) where as Theists seem to believe different colors exist due to mind-made individual preferences or ideas. In Buddhism, the later is termed 'papanca' ('imaginings').

:group:
Zakattack
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 4:07 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ben, Google Adsense [Bot], m0rl0ck, Modus.Ponens, seeker242, Viscid and 9 guests